But I thought corporations were a magical machine that turned profit into jobs. You mean to say that businesses somtimes don't automatically hire new people when they make money? What kind of socialist country is this!

My dog shat in the hallway yesterday, I obviously blamed Obama. He might have been responsible for me losing my keys last week, but I'm more inclined to think it was either aliens or the Knights Templar.

Meh... I'm normally anti-corporation, but it's 1,100 jobs world wide. It's not like when my previous employer turned into a sinking ship and they were eliminating 1,000 jobs every other week at 1 location until they sank a year later and went under.

We had the home office fire nearly all the software developers to "increase the profits." This was the same management that said they liked software sales because they made $4MM on one product and it wasn't costing them anything. I pointed out that I had spent $600K two years earlier developing that product but they don't have any concept of things that go beyond the quarterly report.

Subby sounds like a union worker.The company is profitable, they should be paying all the profits to their workers!(And keep paying them even if the profit evaporates)

Successful companies look forward, not backwards at past results.Just because the division producing iPads is doing well doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of the division producing buggy whips (or Zunes).

So where are the job creators? All I see are profit hungry rich corporations making some record profits who pay less to their employees (or don't give raises) and laying off some of them despite the earnings.

Now the reality probably is that those 1100 terminations will be the longer employed folks who are at a higher pay rate than the newbies who will be replacing them.

CeroX:Meh... I'm normally anti-corporation, but it's 1,100 jobs world wide. It's not like when my previous employer turned into a sinking ship and they were eliminating 1,000 jobs every other week at 1 location until they sank a year later and went under.

I guess i should expand... They are cutting in departments that aren't doing anything productive. A company shouldn't just hire people, or keep people employed JUST because they made a bunch of money. If those departments are all sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and pulling $30k a year for it, then the fat is going to get trimmed.

CeroX:CeroX: Meh... I'm normally anti-corporation, but it's 1,100 jobs world wide. It's not like when my previous employer turned into a sinking ship and they were eliminating 1,000 jobs every other week at 1 location until they sank a year later and went under.

I guess i should expand... They are cutting in departments that aren't doing anything productive. A company shouldn't just hire people, or keep people employed JUST because they made a bunch of money. If those departments are all sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and pulling $30k a year for it, then the fat is going to get trimmed.

Probably just not hiring for the next few months and nobody really getting 'laid off'.

John the Magnificent:Oh, I dunno. Hows about they take a little of the 2.2 BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT and invest it in some new growth areas, instead of paying out humongous CEO bonuses and sucking Wall Street's balls.

That is what they are doing. The jobs that are being cut are in sectors/areas where there is trouble. Per TFA: "The company is not exiting any markets or discontinuing any existing products but will reduce investments in markets that do not offer sustainable growth and returns,"

If you can't make a positive rate of return or if you know the growth in said area is unsustainable, then it makes sense to let these go. That does not mean that they will stop looking for investment in new growth areas.

I know this is somewhat of an oversimplification, but how can we continue to live in a world where the math of this is not criminal in some way? That profit is enough to pay those workers almost a half-million dollars each for the next year. Or, much more realistically, $40k each would kill about 10% of that profit, and put each of these workers at or above median pay for most regions of the US.

So, literally, this company refuses to take a 10% profit (not revenue; their expenses and reinvestment are covered) cut in order to not endanger the livelihoods of the people who made the profit possible. Yes, I'm equating unemployment with criminal negligence here. Making someone unemployed in this economy (in the US anyway) amounts to endangerment at this point, it's gotten that bad.

We need to find a way to criminalize this greedy, sociopathic behavior, immediately. Profit itself isn't criminal, no. But when "enough is never, ever enough", you can justify everything and anything you want, sooner or later. Just because an extra dollar can be made, does not meet it should be made, or we should allow it to be made in that manner.

I work for a small company (5 people) that recently made a huge profit. I was promised, promised, promised that once the deal was done I'd be getting a huge bonus after 6 years of stagnant wages. I literally waited the deal out before looking for a new job thinking I'd come into a big bonus.

Yep, nothing.

The owner now wants to sell the company and needs my help and says "well, this time we will get it in writing" regarding the bonus. But then when he talks to me about my future with the company, he makes threats like "No one is hiring", and "If you leave, you can never come back", and "I pay you so much, you can't make more at another job" and yada yada. SO he can't let me leave (which I know since I basically keep the ground work running) but you don't want to give me more money even though you, personally, just made millions of dollars.

I have no idea WHY he thinks I'll stay. I mean, I like the guy personally. But there's no reason for me to stay.

profit = greed to a lot people around here. They think you should just do things out of the goodness of your heart until your money runs out then someone else can return the favor to you unitl their money runs out and so on.

TheOtherGuy:I know this is somewhat of an oversimplification, but how can we continue to live in a world where the math of this is not criminal in some way? That profit is enough to pay those workers almost a half-million dollars each for the next year. Or, much more realistically, $40k each would kill about 10% of that profit, and put each of these workers at or above median pay for most regions of the US.

So, literally, this company refuses to take a 10% profit (not revenue; their expenses and reinvestment are covered) cut in order to not endanger the livelihoods of the people who made the profit possible. Yes, I'm equating unemployment with criminal negligence here. Making someone unemployed in this economy (in the US anyway) amounts to endangerment at this point, it's gotten that bad.

We need to find a way to criminalize this greedy, sociopathic behavior, immediately. Profit itself isn't criminal, no. But when "enough is never, ever enough", you can justify everything and anything you want, sooner or later. Just because an extra dollar can be made, does not meet it should be made, or we should allow it to be made in that manner.

I see that you did not read TFA. The jobs are being cut in areas where they are not making a profit or that are unsustainable. Companies are not there to only hire and employ folks. They are there to make money. Maybe these folks can move to a part of the company that is making profits.

Not saying it's the case with TI, but companies absolutely do not look at the long term when making decisions. CEOs move the company in a direction that will maximize profit over the next few years, then leave with the obscene amount of money they made while the company flounders due to the unsustainable direction it took.

Large corporations cut workers amidst profits to boost revenue lines on graphs so investors value the stock. Market capitalization has become more important than net worth when determining future outlook. The problem is that Wall Street gets to decide who wins and who loses in the market (as opposed to consumers), and they do it with share price, so that has become the only important thing. Because all businesses have some outstanding debt (you're not maximizing your profits unless you do), and the debt-holders which typically are on Wall Street care more about share price than earnings.

Oops, got the name wrong, but my point is the same. TI's Profit margin is about 16%. The area of concern that they have is sales and income growth is decreasing.

I know you goofed, just had to call it.

According to the limited info in TFA, they're actually trying to look forward for the long term. If they didn't and subsequently went under, these same Farkers who are wringing their hands over this would be smugly saying, "dumbass company, kept betting on buggy whips ha ha"